On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 02:50:00PM +0800, [email protected] wrote: > Please have a review for this patch, any comment will be highly > appreciated.
This is clearly correct. I suspect that there will be other places where we need to also check for PATH_TIMEOUT, since it is basically the same as PATH_DOWN, except with a different state name. For instance, we only log error messages on repeated checks for (newstate == PATH_DOWN), and we should probably do that for PATH_TIMEOUT as well. There are probably more instances outside of check_path. -Ben > > ������: [email protected] > �ռ���: christophe varoqui <[email protected]>, > ����: [email protected], [email protected], "tang.junhui" > <[email protected]> > ����: 2016/08/10 16:11 > ����: [PATCH] multipathd: fail path when path check timeout > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "tang.junhui" <[email protected]> > > path should be failed when path status is PATH_TIMEOUT after check, > otherwise, the valid number of paths in the map would be increased when > the path status is PATH_UP after the next turn check, which would cause > the valid number of paths exceeding the total number of paths in the map. > > Signed-off-by: tang.junhui <[email protected]> > --- > multipathd/main.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/multipathd/main.c b/multipathd/main.c > index f5e9a01..01f1e58 100644 > --- a/multipathd/main.c > +++ b/multipathd/main.c > @@ -1585,7 +1585,7 @@ check_path (struct vectors * vecs, struct path * pp, > int ticks) > pp->checkint = conf->checkint; > put_multipath_config(conf); > > - if (newstate == PATH_DOWN || newstate > == PATH_SHAKY) { > + if (newstate == PATH_DOWN || newstate > == PATH_SHAKY || newstate == PATH_TIMEOUT) { > /* > * proactively fail > path in the DM > */ > -- > 2.8.1.windows.1 -- dm-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
